Gary Marcus

Rank 19 of 47
|
Score 64
10/3/2024, 3:06:13 PM
X
In reply to:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
281d
@GaryMarcus @paul_cal Good, see opportunity for you to raise our bet 10x or 20x, you can win big ! Come on accept it !
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
281d
@paul_cal @DeryaTR_ After yesterday I think some investors are dumber than I thought and also realize that they will use clawbacks etc to keep the valuation up. So I would revise my estimate down some.
Paul Calcraft
@paul_cal
·
281d
@GaryMarcus @DeryaTR_ Right but would you actually still bet now on that basis? That OpenAI's valuation will drop below $68.8B (20% decline from $86B) before the end of 2025?

I don't think it's impossible but I'm curious if you've updated your probability estimate
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
281d
@paul_cal @DeryaTR_ See post immediately above for what would precipitate that.
Paul Calcraft
@paul_cal
·
281d
@GaryMarcus @DeryaTR_ Agree others in thread are overstating "pay up" etc. given your pred is for end 2025. But given latest valuation, don't you now think 20% drop is unlikely to hold? Would have to be a v dramatic drop like a WeWork crash - feels less likely when R&D can keep saying "next year"
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
281d
@paul_cal @DeryaTR_ The bet was about valuation *at end of 2025*.

if they keep losing money and staff and don’t ship GPT-5 by then and competitors overtake them (which is possible) or just give away same stuff for free, end of 2025 may not look so hot.

The statement is part of a public discourse involving a discussion about the valuation of OpenAI and the potential for its decline. The conversation involves predictions and bets on the company's future financial status, which is a public issue related to economic forecasting and investment strategies.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but the tone is somewhat confrontational, which could be seen as slightly negative. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does express frustration with another participant's refusal to clarify their position.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in dialogue but does so in a confrontational manner, which could be improved by focusing more on constructive criticism rather than expressing frustration. [-1]